Critics accuse the Conservative Party of ‘politicizing history’ as national museum mandates change

The release of the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s first research strategy — following a two-year process of reflection that was nearly derailed by the federal government’s decision last year to rename it the Museum of History and rewrite its mandate — has revived the age-old debate over the politicization of Canadian history.

With Canada’s 150th birthday approaching in 2017, and the bicentennial of the War of 1812 just passed with unusual fanfare, the public’s appreciation of Canadian history is ripe for revision, and not just because some of the flagship national museum’s exhibits date to the 1990s, not long after it was renamed from the National Museum of Man. From the rewritten citizenship guide that undid years of Liberal ideological dominance, to the renaming of Canadian military units to honour the monarchy, history is increasingly the lens through which the country sees itself, and a ripe target for those who wish to change it.

Now that the words “critical understanding” have been struck from the museum’s mandate, however, critics fear that history without criticism becomes propaganda.

“The proof is in the pudding,” said Jean-Marc Blais, director general and vice-president of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, in an interview Tuesday. “There are four principles in this research strategy, and one of them is credibility. … In that sense, being critical, the critical understanding, is fundamental. That doesn’t really change.”

The other principles outlined in the newly published document, which also applies to the Canadian War Museum, its “sister,” are accountability, relevance and inclusiveness. Mr. Blais also said that, by the time the new vision is brought to life over the next few years, visitors “will see more of a presence of aboriginal history into the overall narrative of Canadian history itself. This is something that, in the current hall, is missing, which is a reflection of the past.”

Mr. Blais said he has heard criticisms over the years about topics the museum should display with greater prominence, such as the Acadian expulsions. But those complaints never coalesced into a single theory, until the recent efforts of federal Conservatives to put their own stamp on Canadian heritage, led by former Heritage Minister James Moore.

The museum’s new mandate is “to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.”

Ian McKay, professor of history at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., said the Conservative government is “definitely politicizing history, and are quite candid about it.”

He said they take an anachronistic “Victorian” view, dominated by militarism, monarchism, imperialism, and all-round Britishism. The motivation, he thinks, is nothing so crass as vote-buying or simple politicking, but an effort to redefine the country.

“I think there is, in contemporary Canada, a strong attempt to create a pervasive climate of fear, and something like a war panic environment,” he said, and cited Robert Borden as the closest historical precedent, when he tried to win Canadians over to the side of conscription with “a strongly worded argument for their being just one correct way to be Canada.”

Former Museum of Civilization CEO Victor Rabinovitch similarly called the new mandate “narrow and parochial” and feared that its research will become “a form of enhanced journalism that is aimed at popularization,” according to a CBC report.

Nova Scotia Conservative MP Scott Armstrong, speaking in the House of Commons last month, played down the changes to the museum, and said the removal of the word “critical” will have no effect other than relief for museum staff.

“Would anyone suggest that, in the absence of the word in the text proposed by [the bill that changed its mandate], the highly professional staff undertaking important research at the museum would somehow now abandon their professional ethics and judgment?” Mr. Armstrong said.

‘With this regime, I’m not sure I’m fully trustful of their scholarly, intellectual probity in putting forward a museum of Canadian history’

Mr. Blais was also dismissive of the suggestion of political meddling. “I’ve been in the museum for 25 years almost. I can testify personally that I was never pressured for selecting one topic over another,” he said.

There is a clear military slant, however, to the topics flagged as important by the standing committee on heritage, which is examining how history is taught across the country. These include “pre-confederation, early confederation, suffrage, World War I, with an emphasis on battles such as Vimy Ridge, World War II including the Liberation of Holland, the Battle of Ortona, Battle of the Atlantic, the Korean conflict, peacekeeping missions, constitutional development, the Afghanistan conflict, early 20th century Canada, post-war Canada, and the late 20th century.”

Andrew Cash, deputy heritage critic for the NDP who sits on that committee, said the government has spent “a lot of money on getting Canadians hyped up and excited about specific historical events.”

“It’s been a bit of an obsession,” he said. He also said there is a tendency to meddle in supposedly independent institutions.

“They’re trying to do something more long term,” Prof. McKay said. “They’re trying to change our vision of the country…. If it starts to take on the flavour of an exercise in propaganda, that’s when line is crossed. With this regime, I’m not sure I’m fully trustful of their scholarly, intellectual probity in putting forward a museum of Canadian history.”